[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4787?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17418758#comment-17418758
]
Julian Hyde commented on CALCITE-4787:
--------------------------------------
[~jnadeau] has clarified in the PR that 'with' methods are still available.
I think this change is a net positive.
But if (1) we have to change a huge number of Calcite files, or (2) we require
dependent projects to change their code, those are significant negatives. I
would like answers to those questions before we move forward.
My last concern is compatibility. If a dependent project is using a different
version of Immutables, what will be the impact?
> Evaluate use of Immutables instead of ImmutableBeans
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-4787
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4787
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jacques Nadeau
> Assignee: Jacques Nadeau
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 3h 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> In the creation of CALCITE-3328, [Immutables|https://immutables.github.io/]
> was discussed as an alternative to a custom implementation. This ticket is to
> evaluate the impact to the codebase of changing. Ideally, introduction of
> immutables would both add flexibility and reduce the amount of code
> associated with these classes.
> Immutables works via annotation processor which means that it is should be
> relatively seamless to build systems and IDEs.
> The switch would also make it easier to work with these objects types in the
> context of aot compilation tools like GraalVM.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
